What is the correct name of the Messiah? For years I have looked into the various articles presented on this subject and may I say there have been some very poor presentations.

Many have brought this issue up, therefore I had done a brief study on the subject. I have friends who are educated in this, some by Hebrew scholars who have much insight on this, others by those who think they are Hebrew scholars. Does it matter? I have found yes and no.

There is a great deal of debate even amongst Hebrew scholars between the name of the Son of God being Yahshua, Yahusha, Yashua, or even Yehshua, Yeshua… etc. Some have studied the modern variations, others going back to the time of the Messiah’s life. 

And there are those claiming to now have access to ancient renderings believed to be much older. Between them all, every one of them claim to be experts in linguistics, ancient culture, archaeology, or in their own education of the topic. Some scholars say it is important to at least get the “Y” and “SH” sound since it has significant meaning to His name. The Hebrew letters do have meaning.

What we can be sure of is that we know the name means “I Am who Saves/Delivers.” More correctly it would be “Yahuah Saves,” or “Yah is Salvation,” which gives the variations. See our other articles on the name of Yahuah for more information. While there is modern Hebrew characters used, the original comes from the more ancient Aramaic Hebrew Paleo-Hebrew from the pictograph language.

But how did we get the English translation of Jesus?

In Hebrew it may look like Yahusha or Yahshua. Some say it is Yeshua that is correct. In English it renders as Joshua. 

Even the scholars argue over these variations in their defense. But because the Greek language didn’t have letters representing the “Y” and “SH” sounds, the Greek language took Yeshua and replaced the “Y” with “I” and “SH” with “S” to represent the characters. And also ended it with a masculine ending -us in which they come up with IESOUS. 

In that day, Greek was the universal language. However, the Hebrew was not directly rendered. Iesous is not a translation, but the Greek rendition of the characters used in Hebrew, which is called a transliteration. It was a letter to letter transliteration from the characters of one language to another. 

In Latin it becomes IESUS. Jesus in English is a rendering of the Latin IESUS, with the “J” replacing the “I” for a name beginning with “I”. But the “J” wasn’t used until later centuries (around the 1600’s).

Those used to the KJV and defend it, who may be considered “KJV-Only” folks, make the case that the text says His name shall be Jesus, the only name in which we are saved. Because that it what the translation says. And they argue that using ANY other variation is incorrect, even the original language. However, they shall note that originally in the 1611 version of the KJV before it was revised, actually rendered the Latin Iesus. 

The “J” didn’t replace the “I” in the KJV until a century or so later. So now we are even one step further from the original name. But we still know of whom we speak. And KJV can only argue from a modern revision of their text. But they would be arguing the change change in the English name even over the earlier Hebrew, Greek, and even Latin rendition.

The KJV chose instead of using original names, to render the names in modern language. And to use their Latin variations nonetheless. Since the English language is versatile, they could have retained the actual Hebrew name, or at least the Greek. But instead chose a transliteration of a transliteration. However, the Hebrew language was lost and obsolete until more recently. The Greek language was a universal language in the time of Jesus. The modern version of the Hebrew now rendered is only a revision of the lost language, since only a couple of centuries. And some are not certain even if the variation is correct.

Some have accused the rendering of “Jesus” as a mockery. There is a fallacy that the name “Jesus” is somehow connected to the Greek pagan god Zeus because in English it is similar in appearance and sound. However, there is no conclusive evidence of this. 

The claim is that JeSUS is saying “Hail Zeus” or “Hey Zeus.” But that is not even close to the Greek. And is only a linguistic play on the English rendering and pronunciation. Just as some claim JeSUS sounds like the Hebrew for horse, which is pronounced “soos.” And that JESUS is saying, “Hey Horse.” Others claiming it means “Earth Pig” in Hebrew, and that by pronouncing it as such is calling our Saviour a horse or an earth pig, which is a linguistic play on the Hebrew pronunciation. 

They are using the forms of language to cross barriers of the claim in other languages and pronunciations and making up fabrications to falsely defend an false argument. That is in error and unfair, not adding credibility to the argument. Others yet claim “Jesus” is a Mexican god, which is also a fable.

One example on words is the word used by some of the Pacific Island nations Uma.

In Samoan it means "Finish" in Fijian in means "Kiss" (To be verified) and in New Zealand Maori it means "Run". Now if you take this scenario and put these three groups of people together and say Uma the Samoans would walk off (Because its finished) the Maoris would runaway (because we have told them to) and the Fijians would be kissing everyone (because we told them to).

Now because this word sounds and spells similar in each of these languages is no reason or authority to use it as a word to describe something different in the language of the other.

Does it matter to Jesus/Yeshua/Yahusha/Yahshua which He is called? 

The name does have significance in Hebrew to what it means “Yahuah who Saves.” The “Sacred Name” groups claim that He won’t even acknowledge us if we don’t call Him properly by name. That is ridiculous. He knows we are talking about the only one we could be talking about in that context in which we refer Him and He gives us grace in that. And it is by the authority of the name in which stands for His character and Person that we stand behind. We know whom it is referred, despite the cultural linguistic changes. Their claim would make it impossible for anyone from Jesus’ time to the 20th century to have come to know God through the Saviour during that era.

Also they haven’t considered that the name Immanuel was also given to represent His identity. He would be “God with Us.” And in Isaiah He is called “wonderful, counsellor.” And is known as The Comforter elsewhere. But we know whom we refer because it is to the one who is Saviour. We are calling him by a name recognized according to variations of language differences, not totally different names altogether.

Sadly many have and it has caused much error and confusion. It has caused many to turn away from the one and only saviour to whom all honour and praise belongs that is Yahusha/Yahshua/Yeshua/Jesus.

There's more to the name than just the name

The name is referring to the one in whom is the Authority behind the name. And represents the active power behind His name. Name can mean “reputation” and “authority,” or also the “character” of a person.